I agree with Sean T that providing subs for PMQs had to be done. I also agree with Neil that it was a forseeable action. As with the unclear Devomax, we are watching a form of political knee jerks brought about by an absence of planning. Did no one in the BT camp notice that postal voting would happen earlier? Wholly inept by Better Together. It all helps YES supporters.
Having just read SeanT's blog on the DT, this line stood out for me
"Labour will lurch into bitter recriminations, as half its senior figures, such as Gordon Brown, instantly become foreigners."
I had thought that the 65 Scottish seats that would go would hurt Labour but I had not followed it to the obvious conclusion that Labour would lose so many senior figures.
From 1992 to 2010. None of these Labour Leaders would have been in charge of the HoC Labour party if Scotland was already independent. John Smith, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
Blair? Mr Blair was surely English [edit: or more precisely non-Scottish] by mentality, insofar as he thought in that way at all, and he sat for Sedgefield, which hasn't been Scottish since (very temporarily) sometime in the 14th century IIRC.
Born in Scotland. Both parents grew up in Scotland.
Natural parents English, but informally adopted: adoptive parents were Scots born I find on checking - quite a surprise (so thanks for that prod). So presumably would have retained his English nationality had that been available at the time. Plus moved to England when very small.
A work permit for each of them should be required. Charge top end folk £10k to £20k pa for the work permits. Charge cleaners £2k to £3k pa. Look at the Cayman Islands way of coping with circa 50% of its workers on permits.
No disrespect to Britain but I don't see why people think the best people are going to jump through all their hoops. What you actually do is filter the people who immigrate down to the people who are desperate enough to have to put up with your shit.
Agreed - a silly gesture very New Labour in style and really not appropriate. Cameron should have known better.
It's nothing compared to their back of a fag packed constitutional proposals. I hope they dont have to face tricky questions about those up in Scotland tomorrow.
I agree with Sean T that providing subs for PMQs had to be done. I also agree with Neil that it was a forseeable action. As with the unclear Devomax, we are watching a form of political knee jerks brought about by an absence of planning. Did no one in the BT camp notice that postal voting would happen earlier? Wholly inept by Better Together. It all helps YES supporters.
BT knew perfectly well about the postal voting - it's why they refused a third round of Salmond vs Darling. (I know it's a rhetorical question. But to tear up the Edinburgh Agreement, even if it doesn't have the form of law as LiaMT pointed out, is a bit much on top of that.)
on the other hand Mr Nabavi can take great comfort for 2015 if this is a typical Dougie Alexander campaign, the only black spot being Cameron's spinners are just as bad.
"Why does it matter who the ultimate owner of Thames Water or Heathrow Airport is, so long as they provide an efficient service?"
Yes, I think it does. The owners of Thames Water is, I think, and Australian company that has been taking dividends out of the Company and back home. AT the same time Thames Water wants to, has to, invest in new infrastructure. The solution? Surcharge the tethered customers, who can't go anywhere else, and carry on exporting dividends (i.e. wealth) to Australia.
Now whatever system that is, it ain't capitalism. The shareholders of the Australian company are not taking a risk with their money, they have simply brought the ability to tax English citizens. In days of yore we had that system, where by a rich person could buy a "Staple" or a monopoly but we got rid of it for good reasons. It should never have been allowed back and should now be abolished.
If Thames Water need to invest N million quid to meet their obligations let them raise the money and make the investment. If they cannot do that and still make a profit then the shareholders loose their shirts and the business comes back into public ownership.
But in any event where do you think money comes from - trees? If the govt run the utilites do you think they would be free? Whoever runs them the money would have to come from somewhere. Charges and borrowing.
But you ignore the lack of risk and the absence of competition but the guarantee of dividend.
Yes I support there being a control on immigration based on what people can offer the country
I am not a politician or involved in politics at all, so why should I have to answer, or be expected to be able to answer, forensic questions specific to the business of someone I don't know from Adam?
I am guessing that you wanted me to come up with a few ideas so that you could shoot them down with your idea of how they couldn't work based on details about your business that I couldn't possibly know.. but I am not getting drawn into that
I forwarded you the name of UKIPs head of Policy, is it so unreasonable to think he may have a better idea than me?
Anyway, why do you care? Why not just vote for someone else?
So you loudly support a policy you are absolutely clueless about? And they are hardly 'forensic' questions.
An example of the questions such policies throw up : if a company hires a brilliant engineer from (say) India, should (s)he be able to bring in his family of eight with him, even if some of them may become cleaners? Can they come over immediately, or should there be a waiting period? Should they be able to apply for residency after a certain period in the UK?
That is hardly a complex set of questions for you to answer from your own viewpoint, if you do not even know UKIP's position.
If you are going to use "(s)he" you probably shouldnt refer to the person as "him"
A wife and six kids, I say ok, (if the kids are under 16) but they cant claim any kind of state benefit
Residency... yes after 5-6 years I guess
Maybe the family allowance for visas could depend on how well you score on the points system. If you only just meet the bar, it's just you (at least at first). If you're really special, your whole family gets in.
I'll eat a kilo of jellied eels if either of them put themselves into the position of taking questions from 'ordinary' voters. It's been suggested Cameron backed out of an STV interview with a Scottish audience because he wanted to choose the interviewer, have it recorded (non live) and have editorial oversight. If Cameron goes beyond that comfort zone now, my respect for him will increase somewhat.
Let's see - i doubt anyone would hold you to your first sentence. Of course it is so difficult to define 'ordinary' voters but I'd say they would give anyone a fair hearing - it's the zealots on both sides who we so often hear rather than the ordinary Jo's
It would also have been impossible to go on with PMQs as a third of the country threatens to break away. It would look crazily parochial, and blinkered, and bad for NO - the two party leaders bickering in London as Britain is about to dissolve. Just underlining that London doesn't care about Scotland.
So PMQs had to be cancelled anyway (I wonder if they will also cancel next week?).
And then everyone would say: where the hell are the leaders?
So they had to go to Scotland.
It's a big risk, but big risks are now needed. I agree they should get amongst the ordinary voters, be polite and humble, be eloquent and courteous. Emphasise the emotions and largely ignore the economics. If a Nat starts ranting at them just take it on the chin, and be polite and decorous in return.
Difficult. But needs to be done.
Even if 'No' scrapes home, that still means a minimum of 45-49% of the electorate of Scotland want out of the union. That is poison, and any amount of devo ultra ultra mega super max isn't going to change the feeling both north and south of the border that the marriage is pretty much over.
The day the referendum was called was the beginning of the end, regardless of the ultimate result.
Two of my best friends here in Stockholm are Scottish, both are unbelievably angry that they don't even get a vote whilst 'foreigners' in Scotland do. Ten of the eleven starters for Scotland against Germany on Sunday don't have a vote since they aren't on Salmond's electoral roll.
Bitterness, anger, sadness, frustration and possibly even violence will follow, whatever the result.
A work permit for each of them should be required. Charge top end folk £10k to £20k pa for the work permits. Charge cleaners £2k to £3k pa. Look at the Cayman Islands way of coping with circa 50% of its workers on permits.
No disrespect to Britain but I don't see why people think the best people are going to jump through all their hoops. What you actually do is filter the people who immigrate down to the people who are desperate enough to have to put up with your shit.
Well it works elsewhere and people are time limited on how long they can stay. It provides large government revenues and since foreigners have to fund schooling and medical themselves, locals are not subsidising immigrants. It is the other way around.
Riddle me this, oh PB brains trust: Why is Dave not (yet) pushing for a Federal UK?
I can see absolutely why Labour abhor the idea. I can see absolutely why Farage pushes for a FUK. But why - really why - is there radio silence from the Tories? I don't get it.
Because the Conservatives "raison d'etre" is to conserve. I.E. maintain the status quo.
Only time they went against that was when they allowed Heath to sign us up to the EU, but they have faught a terrible battle about that ever since.
A society without the means to change is without the means of its conservation. Every proper conservative knows this.
I'll eat a kilo of jellied eels if either of them put themselves into the position of taking questions from 'ordinary' voters. It's been suggested Cameron backed out of an STV interview with a Scottish audience because he wanted to choose the interviewer, have it recorded (non live) and have editorial oversight. If Cameron goes beyond that comfort zone now, my respect for him will increase somewhat.
Let's see - i doubt anyone would hold you to your first sentence. Of course it is so difficult to define 'ordinary' voters but I'd say they would give anyone a fair hearing - it's the zealots on both sides who we so often hear rather than the ordinary Jo's
It would also have been impossible to go on with PMQs as a third of the country threatens to break away. It would look crazily parochial, and blinkered, and bad for NO - the two party leaders bickering in London as Britain is about to dissolve. Just underlining that London doesn't care about Scotland.
So PMQs had to be cancelled anyway (I wonder if they will also cancel next week?).
And then everyone would say: where the hell are the leaders?
So they had to go to Scotland.
It's a big risk, but big risks are now needed. I agree they should get amongst the ordinary voters, be polite and humble, be eloquent and courteous. Emphasise the emotions and largely ignore the economics. If a Nat starts ranting at them just take it on the chin, and be polite and decorous in return.
Difficult. But needs to be done.
Even if 'No' scrapes home, that still means a minimum of 45-49% of the electorate of Scotland want out of the union. That is poison, and any amount of devo ultra ultra mega super max isn't going to change the feeling both north and south of the border that the marriage is pretty much over.
The day the referendum was called was the beginning of the end, regardless of the ultimate result.
Two of my best friends here in Stockholm are Scottish, both are unbelievably angry that they don't even get a vote whilst 'foreigners' in Scotland do. Ten of the eleven starters for Scotland against Germany on Sunday don't have a vote since they aren't on Salmond's electoral roll.
Bitterness, anger, sadness, frustration and possibly even violence will follow, whatever the result.
Mr Salmond had to follow UK legislation on referenda - which are different in detail from elections (rather surprisingly, but there we are). It's a reserved area of legislation. Complaints should go to Westminster.
Having just read SeanT's blog on the DT, this line stood out for me
"Labour will lurch into bitter recriminations, as half its senior figures, such as Gordon Brown, instantly become foreigners."
I had thought that the 65 Scottish seats that would go would hurt Labour but I had not followed it to the obvious conclusion that Labour would lose so many senior figures.
From 1992 to 2010. None of these Labour Leaders would have been in charge of the HoC Labour party if Scotland was already independent. John Smith, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
Blair? Mr Blair was surely English [edit: or more precisely non-Scottish] by mentality, insofar as he thought in that way at all, and he sat for Sedgefield, which hasn't been Scottish since (very temporarily) sometime in the 14th century IIRC.
Born in Scotland. Both parents grew up in Scotland.
Natural parents English, but informally adopted: adoptive parents were Scots born I find on checking - quite a surprise (so thanks for that prod). So presumably would have retained his English nationality had that been available at the time. Plus moved to England when very small.
Father would have been adopted as Scottish and mother was Scottish.
Even if 'No' scrapes home, that still means a minimum of 45-49% of the electorate of Scotland want out of the union. That is poison, and any amount of devo ultra ultra mega super max isn't going to change the feeling both north and south of the border that the marriage is pretty much over.
The day the referendum was called was the beginning of the end, regardless of the ultimate result.
Two of my best friends here in Stockholm are Scottish, both are unbelievably angry that they don't even get a vote whilst 'foreigners' in Scotland do. Ten of the eleven starters for Scotland against Germany on Sunday don't have a vote since they aren't on Salmond's electoral roll.
Bitterness, anger, sadness, frustration and possibly even violence will follow, whatever the result.
This morning Alex Salmond said “the Governor of the Bank of England is in charge”. The Governor of the Bank of England says “currency union is incompatible with sovereignty” for Scotland.
Having just read SeanT's blog on the DT, this line stood out for me
"Labour will lurch into bitter recriminations, as half its senior figures, such as Gordon Brown, instantly become foreigners."
I had thought that the 65 Scottish seats that would go would hurt Labour but I had not followed it to the obvious conclusion that Labour would lose so many senior figures.
From 1992 to 2010. None of these Labour Leaders would have been in charge of the HoC Labour party if Scotland was already independent. John Smith, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
Blair? Mr Blair was surely English [edit: or more precisely non-Scottish] by mentality, insofar as he thought in that way at all, and he sat for Sedgefield, which hasn't been Scottish since (very temporarily) sometime in the 14th century IIRC.
Born in Scotland. Both parents grew up in Scotland.
Natural parents English, but informally adopted: adoptive parents were Scots born I find on checking - quite a surprise (so thanks for that prod). So presumably would have retained his English nationality had that been available at the time. Plus moved to England when very small.
Tony Blair was adopted??
So Wiki says (I know, I know). And - if it is right - not through the legal route either, so he is presumably still English by birth [edit: of parents], or EWNIish, as and when that distinction arises.
Having just read SeanT's blog on the DT, this line stood out for me
"Labour will lurch into bitter recriminations, as half its senior figures, such as Gordon Brown, instantly become foreigners."
I had thought that the 65 Scottish seats that would go would hurt Labour but I had not followed it to the obvious conclusion that Labour would lose so many senior figures.
From 1992 to 2010. None of these Labour Leaders would have been in charge of the HoC Labour party if Scotland was already independent. John Smith, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
Blair? Mr Blair was surely English [edit: or more precisely non-Scottish] by mentality, insofar as he thought in that way at all, and he sat for Sedgefield, which hasn't been Scottish since (very temporarily) sometime in the 14th century IIRC.
Born in Scotland. Both parents grew up in Scotland.
Natural parents English, but informally adopted: adoptive parents were Scots born I find on checking - quite a surprise (so thanks for that prod). So presumably would have retained his English nationality had that been available at the time. Plus moved to England when very small.
Tony Blair was adopted??
So Wiki says (I know, I know). And - if it is right - not through the legal route either, so he is presumably still English by birth.
No, wiki does not say Tony Blair was adopted. Read it again.
A work permit for each of them should be required. Charge top end folk £10k to £20k pa for the work permits. Charge cleaners £2k to £3k pa. Look at the Cayman Islands way of coping with circa 50% of its workers on permits.
No disrespect to Britain but I don't see why people think the best people are going to jump through all their hoops. What you actually do is filter the people who immigrate down to the people who are desperate enough to have to put up with your shit.
Well it works elsewhere and people are time limited on how long they can stay. It provides large government revenues and since foreigners have to fund schooling and medical themselves, locals are not subsidising immigrants. It is the other way around.
Where's the elsewhere you're thinking of that's doing things like this while attracting, for example, top tech talent?
Modern Scotsman @ModernScotsman 6 mins @WingsScotland@aphrodite1306 A baby on the way... three wise men coming to Scotland... it's like a dress rehearsal for a Nativity play.
"Just underlining that London doesn't care about Scotland."
I know this might be hard for many on here but actually London, or at least the majority of Londoners, couldn't give a big rats arse about Scotland. The same goes for most of England.
Having just read SeanT's blog on the DT, this line stood out for me
"Labour will lurch into bitter recriminations, as half its senior figures, such as Gordon Brown, instantly become foreigners."
I had thought that the 65 Scottish seats that would go would hurt Labour but I had not followed it to the obvious conclusion that Labour would lose so many senior figures.
From 1992 to 2010. None of these Labour Leaders would have been in charge of the HoC Labour party if Scotland was already independent. John Smith, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
Blair? Mr Blair was surely English [edit: or more precisely non-Scottish] by mentality, insofar as he thought in that way at all, and he sat for Sedgefield, which hasn't been Scottish since (very temporarily) sometime in the 14th century IIRC.
Born in Scotland. Both parents grew up in Scotland.
Natural parents English, but informally adopted: adoptive parents were Scots born I find on checking - quite a surprise (so thanks for that prod). So presumably would have retained his English nationality had that been available at the time. Plus moved to England when very small.
Tony Blair was adopted??
So Wiki says (I know, I know). And - if it is right - not through the legal route either, so he is presumably still English by birth [edit: of parents], or EWNIish, as and when that distinction arises.
Eh? Wiki says Tony's dad was adopted. Not Tony. From his dad's wiki:
Born Charles Leonard Augustus Parsons in Filey, Yorkshire, England, he was the illegitimate son of two middle class travelling entertainers ... their hectic lifestyles prompted them to give up baby Leo, who was fostered out to (and later adopted by) a working class couple, a Glasgow shipyard worker named James Blair and his wife Mary, taking their surname.
Having just read SeanT's blog on the DT, this line stood out for me
"Labour will lurch into bitter recriminations, as half its senior figures, such as Gordon Brown, instantly become foreigners."
I had thought that the 65 Scottish seats that would go would hurt Labour but I had not followed it to the obvious conclusion that Labour would lose so many senior figures.
From 1992 to 2010. None of these Labour Leaders would have been in charge of the HoC Labour party if Scotland was already independent. John Smith, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
Blair? Mr Blair was surely English [edit: or more precisely non-Scottish] by mentality, insofar as he thought in that way at all, and he sat for Sedgefield, which hasn't been Scottish since (very temporarily) sometime in the 14th century IIRC.
Born in Scotland. Both parents grew up in Scotland.
Natural parents English, but informally adopted: adoptive parents were Scots born I find on checking - quite a surprise (so thanks for that prod). So presumably would have retained his English nationality had that been available at the time. Plus moved to England when very small.
Tony Blair was adopted??
So Wiki says (I know, I know). And - if it is right - not through the legal route either, so he is presumably still English by birth.
No, wiki does not say Tony Blair was adopted. Read it again.
Sorry, yes. Idiot! (me.) Father informally adopted = English by parentage. Ergo TB presumably English by parental right. However he certainly has never seemed distinctively Scottish in any other way than place of birth.
"Just underlining that London doesn't care about Scotland."
I know this might be hard for many on here but actually London, or at least the majority of Londoners, couldn't give a big rats arse about Scotland. The same goes for most of England.
We all know Londoners don't give a rats arse for most of England, there's no need to broadcast it.
Having just read SeanT's blog on the DT, this line stood out for me
"Labour will lurch into bitter recriminations, as half its senior figures, such as Gordon Brown, instantly become foreigners."
I had thought that the 65 Scottish seats that would go would hurt Labour but I had not followed it to the obvious conclusion that Labour would lose so many senior figures.
From 1992 to 2010. None of these Labour Leaders would have been in charge of the HoC Labour party if Scotland was already independent. John Smith, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
Blair? Mr Blair was surely English [edit: or more precisely non-Scottish] by mentality, insofar as he thought in that way at all, and he sat for Sedgefield, which hasn't been Scottish since (very temporarily) sometime in the 14th century IIRC.
Born in Scotland. Both parents grew up in Scotland.
Natural parents English, but informally adopted: adoptive parents were Scots born I find on checking - quite a surprise (so thanks for that prod). So presumably would have retained his English nationality had that been available at the time. Plus moved to England when very small.
Tony Blair was adopted??
So Wiki says (I know, I know). And - if it is right - not through the legal route either, so he is presumably still English by birth.
No, wiki does not say Tony Blair was adopted. Read it again.
Sorry, yes. Idiot! (me.) Father informally adopted = English by parentage. Ergo TB presumably English by parental right. However he certainly has never seemed distinctively Scottish in any other way than place of birth.
Having just read SeanT's blog on the DT, this line stood out for me
"Labour will lurch into bitter recriminations, as half its senior figures, such as Gordon Brown, instantly become foreigners."
I had thought that the 65 Scottish seats that would go would hurt Labour but I had not followed it to the obvious conclusion that Labour would lose so many senior figures.
From 1992 to 2010. None of these Labour Leaders would have been in charge of the HoC Labour party if Scotland was already independent. John Smith, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
Blair? Mr Blair was surely English [edit: or more precisely non-Scottish] by mentality, insofar as he thought in that way at all, and he sat for Sedgefield, which hasn't been Scottish since (very temporarily) sometime in the 14th century IIRC.
Born in Scotland. Both parents grew up in Scotland.
Natural parents English, but informally adopted: adoptive parents were Scots born I find on checking - quite a surprise (so thanks for that prod). So presumably would have retained his English nationality had that been available at the time. Plus moved to England when very small.
Tony Blair was adopted??
So Wiki says (I know, I know). And - if it is right - not through the legal route either, so he is presumably still English by birth [edit: of parents], or EWNIish, as and when that distinction arises.
Wiki doesn't say Tony Blair was adopted; it says his father Leo was adopted.
"Just underlining that London doesn't care about Scotland."
I know this might be hard for many on here but actually London, or at least the majority of Londoners, couldn't give a big rats arse about Scotland. The same goes for most of England.
I didn't say that. SeanT did, as it happens (quoting got mangled again).
But I have no problem with that sentiment - indyref is not primarily about the English - far from it - but our own governance and resposibilities.
"Just underlining that London doesn't care about Scotland."
I know this might be hard for many on here but actually London, or at least the majority of Londoners, couldn't give a big rats arse about Scotland. The same goes for most of England.
Er, I think you'll find that London, which very much depends on the health of the financial sector, very definitely gives a "big rat's arse" about Scotland's secession. Not because everyone here loves the Scots, but because the the threat of economic turmoil is sincere.
I know it's different in that there pub you drink in, near Wherever-on-the-Wold, but I can't help that.
Your confusing "London, economic entity" with "London, 11 million people, 10.5 million of which couldn't give a big rat's arse".
Having just read SeanT's blog on the DT, this line stood out for me
"Labour will lurch into bitter recriminations, as half its senior figures, such as Gordon Brown, instantly become foreigners."
I had thought that the 65 Scottish seats that would go would hurt Labour but I had not followed it to the obvious conclusion that Labour would lose so many senior figures.
From 1992 to 2010. None of these Labour Leaders would have been in charge of the HoC Labour party if Scotland was already independent. John Smith, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
Blair? Mr Blair was surely English [edit: or more precisely non-Scottish] by mentality, insofar as he thought in that way at all, and he sat for Sedgefield, which hasn't been Scottish since (very temporarily) sometime in the 14th century IIRC.
Born in Scotland. Both parents grew up in Scotland.
Natural parents English, but informally adopted: adoptive parents were Scots born I find on checking - quite a surprise (so thanks for that prod). So presumably would have retained his English nationality had that been available at the time. Plus moved to England when very small.
Tony Blair was adopted??
So Wiki says (I know, I know). And - if it is right - not through the legal route either, so he is presumably still English by birth.
No, wiki does not say Tony Blair was adopted. Read it again.
Sorry, yes. Idiot! (me.) Father informally adopted = English by parentage. Ergo TB presumably English by parental right. However he certainly has never seemed distinctively Scottish in any other way than place of birth.
He liked to get into fights with foreigners.
On the contrary: it's about inclusivity, at least as far as the Scots are concerned. You ought to go down some parts of Glasgow, or Easter Road, on a Saturday night. Some of the locals are not at all fussy who they fight when they're fu as partans (Anglice, pished as crabs).
@joncraig: Senior TUC official tells me Mark Carney declaring currency union in event of Yes vote "incompatible with sovereignty" was "a bombshell".
Ah, yes, the currency gambit that has worked *so* well so far (how have the polls gone since Osborne's unveiled that strategy) is what they should be focussing on right now.
Cameron needs to get out there and do a Tony Blair and let himself be punished, and seen to be punished. Get shouted at. A few eggs would do him no harm (not a suggestion). Eases the anger and pressure.
Douglas Carswell has written a blog this morning for the DT in which he laments how 8,000 have to share one GP and it's not right.
Apparently, however, this hapless overworked GP is...Romanian!
Is this actually true? Anyone know?
Right. The UKIP policy is to address the "quantity and quality" of migration. We'd still have the best and brightest coming in. Thickos in the mainstream parties don't seem to get this. That's why they point to a slightly larger minority of immigrants than Brits having degrees, and then thinking that's evidence why bringing over more unskilled Somalis and Filipino cleaners is a good thing.
I remember how the 'thickos' in UKIP squealed when I asked how the "quantity and quality" of migration would be addressed, and what it would mean for the companies I work for.
P.S. Was it last week you and your lady had your big day out in London? Of so can you tell us how it went and what you did?
Basically, some of it went over how our industry has a large skilled staff shortage, and find it hard to recruit. The visa process we have at the moment is time-consuming, expensive, and often we cannot get the staff we require, even when they are excellently qualified.
That is under the current system. UKIPpers generally are all piss and wind when it comes to questions of how the "quantity and quality" of migration will be addressed without adversely affecting industries such as ours.
The answers I got were the same as iSam's below: basically, "I really believe this policy will help, but have absolutely no clue on how it will work or the effects it will have."
If they spent a tenth of the time they spend worrying about Filipino cleaners thinking about it, they might have better answers.
As for your p.s.: we're going next week, it should be fun! Thanks again for everyone's advice.
Good God you are an tiresome bore
The policy will stop areas of the country being flooded with people from poor countries undercutting English people, and stop entire towns changing in a a matter of years to the detriment of the people who lived there previously.
But as I say I don't get why you expect people that are broadly interested in politics to be able to forensically dissect policy specific to the business of strangers.. and that you claim victory and speak of people in derogatory terms for not guessing is just plain weird
Why not find out for yourself and vote accordingly?
@joncraig: Senior TUC official tells me Mark Carney declaring currency union in event of Yes vote "incompatible with sovereignty" was "a bombshell".
That's pretty blunt. "Incompatible with sovereignty."
I can now see the FUK's medium term gameplan.
If it is a YES and Salmond comes asking for a formal currency union, then it will be offered - IF Salmond agrees to some kind of loose Federation, preserving the UK in some form (and avoiding all instability).
It will then be up to Salmond to see if he can sell this to his people. Probably not, I would guess.
How is Carney's statement any different to what he's being saying for months?
Just had a wager little wager on William Hague as the next PM- if the referendum goes yes and cameron resigns I don't see who else could take over without the coalition falling apart. 50/1 seems like good odds any thoughts?
Cameron needs to get out there and do a Tony Blair and let himself be punished, and seen to be punished. Get shouted at. A few eggs would do him no harm (not a suggestion). Eases the anger and pressure.
I agree,labour fronting the no campaign hasn't worked,but saying that,I want English independence. ;-)
Ah, yes, the currency gambit that has worked *so* well so far (how have the polls gone since Osborne's unveiled that strategy) is what they should be focussing on right now.
I don't think Carney saying this today was part of some Westminster master plan.
He is right though. He needs to say it. Now more than ever. If there is a yes, there needs to be absolute clarity by everyone involved that a currency union is not compatible with sovereignty.
Just had a wager little wager on William Hague as the next PM- if the referendum goes yes and cameron resigns I don't see who else could take over without the coalition falling apart. 50/1 seems like good odds any thoughts?
I think the consensus is that 16/1 on Cameron going this year (is it still available?) is better value.
It is fascinating that a few days ago people were complaining that immigrants don't integrate properly, and how bad that is, and how it causes problems in society.
Now we have the Scots, who have always been allowed their own leeway with their own legal system etc, and have never properly "integrated" and become British. Now this is causing problems as they want to go their own way.
Rather than flying the Saltire, perhaps we should have put Union Flags all over Scotland, and said look: this is Great Britain, you are part of it and all the greatness it is. So be part of it and fly our flag, or go your own way; but pick one.
Devolution only allowed a non-integrated community to further separate.
"Just underlining that London doesn't care about Scotland."
I know this might be hard for many on here but actually London, or at least the majority of Londoners, couldn't give a big rats arse about Scotland. The same goes for most of England.
Er, I think you'll find that London, which very much depends on the health of the financial sector, very definitely gives a "big rat's arse" about Scotland's secession. Not because everyone here loves the Scots, but because the the threat of economic turmoil is sincere.
I know it's different in that there pub you drink in, near Wherever-on-the-Wold, but I can't help that.
Your confusing "London, economic entity" with "London, 11 million people, 10.5 million of which couldn't give a big rat's arse".
Cripes. Does SeanT think that because he lives there, he speaks for all?
Last night, the entire city was swarming with millions of shrieking and wailing Londoners, caught up in strange mass hysteria. Or not.
Just had a wager little wager on William Hague as the next PM- if the referendum goes yes and cameron resigns I don't see who else could take over without the coalition falling apart. 50/1 seems like good odds any thoughts?
This was discussed on the Daily Politics.
Unless and until there is a credible alternative (Clegg FFS?) then Cameron can't resign, and if he tried the Queen could refuse (there is precedent apparently)
Ah, yes, the currency gambit that has worked *so* well so far (how have the polls gone since Osborne's unveiled that strategy) is what they should be focussing on right now.
I don't think Carney saying this today was part of some Westminster master plan.
I was more commenting on the speed with which certain elements picked it up.
Ah, yes, the currency gambit that has worked *so* well so far (how have the polls gone since Osborne's unveiled that strategy) is what they should be focussing on right now.
I don't think Carney saying this today was part of some Westminster master plan.
He is right though. He needs to say it. Now more than ever. If there is a yes, there needs to be absolute clarity by everyone involved that a currency union is not compatible with sovereignty.
Might be prudent (!) to check the actual script. It seems that in fact Mr C said "FULL socereignty", which is not the same thing at all. Even Rab C. Nesbit, never mind Mr Swinney, would agree that that is a perfectly accurate way to describe a CU.
Some elision and sins of omission going on there methinks (not by you, Mr P., I hasten to add).
"He is right though. He needs to say it. Now more than ever. If there is a yes, there needs to be absolute clarity by everyone involved that a currency union is not compatible with sovereignty."
I don't see how there can be the slightest doubt about this. Currency Union cannot possibly be compatible with sovereignty. It is a statement of the bleeding obvious, although evidently not so obvious to some that the Governor thought it went without saying.
I don't see how there can be the slightest doubt about this. Currency Union cannot possibly be compatible with sovereignty. It is a statement of the bleeding obvious, although evidently not so obvious to some that the Governor thought it went without saying.
Maybe Scottish people are happy with sovereignty in the sense that France, Spain, Italy and the Netherlands enjoy sovereignty?
I have a feeling there is a snowball effect at work. Just been speaking to a Scots colleague who says there has been a real shift. Salmond is winning the air war and the ground war, and the polls have given Yes a shot in the arm. There's is a "if you can't beat them join them" attitude up there that might push Yes over the top. The currency dead horse is being flogged by No.
Douglas Carswell has written a blog this morning for the DT in which he laments how 8,000 have to share one GP and it's not right.
Apparently, however, this hapless overworked GP is...Romanian!
Is this actually true? Anyone know?
Right. The UKIP policy is to address the "quantity and quality" of migration. We'd still have the best and brightest coming in. Thickos in the mainstream parties don't seem to get this. That's why they point to a slightly larger minority of immigrants than Brits having degrees, and then thinking that's evidence why bringing over more unskilled Somalis and Filipino cleaners is a good thing.
I remember how the 'thickos' in UKIP squealed when I asked how the "quantity and quality" of migration would be addressed, and what it would mean for the companies I work for.
P.S. Was it last week you and your lady had your big day out in London? Of so can you tell us how it went and what you did?
That is under the current system. UKIPpers generally are all piss and wind when it comes to questions of how the "quantity and quality" of migration will be addressed without adversely affecting industries such as ours.
The answers I got were the same as iSam's below: basically, "I really believe this policy will help, but have absolutely no clue on how it will work or the effects it will have."
If they spent a tenth of the time they spend worrying about Filipino cleaners thinking about it, they might have better answers.
As for your p.s.: we're going next week, it should be fun! Thanks again for everyone's advice.
Good God you are an tiresome bore
The policy will stop areas of the country being flooded with people from poor countries undercutting English people, and stop entire towns changing in a a matter of years to the detriment of the people who lived there previously.
But as I say I don't get why you expect people that are broadly interested in politics to be able to forensically dissect policy specific to the business of strangers.. and that you claim victory and speak of people in derogatory terms for not guessing is just plain weird
Why not find out for yourself and vote accordingly?
"Good God you are an tiresome bore"
You just lost the argument, mate.
Hardly
For one I am not in an argument, I just tried to answer a question that you asked.
I don't care what you think or how the policy I favour affects you
It is fascinating that a few days ago people were complaining that immigrants don't integrate properly, and how bad that is, and how it causes problems in society.
Now we have the Scots, who have always been allowed their own leeway with their own legal system etc, and have never properly "integrated" and become British. Now this is causing problems as they want to go their own way.
Rather than flying the Saltire, perhaps we should have put Union Flags all over Scotland, and said look: this is Great Britain, you are part of it and all the greatness it is. So be part of it and fly our flag, or go your own way; but pick one.
Devolution only allowed a non-integrated community to further separate.
Putting Union flags all over Scotland now would be akin to putting Crosses up all over Bethnall Green, however, the broad thrust of your argument is correct. The sickness of this country is one of a weak (and deliberately weakened) culture (the British culture -which we've done nothing but mock, denigrate and be embarrassed about for the last 50 years), and of others not just filling that vacuum, but being subsidised and encouraged to do so. The same is happening now with the flipping Cornish. No-one likes to hate themselves.
Yes I support there being a control on immigration based on what people can offer the country
I am not a politician or involved in politics at all, so why should I have to answer, or be expected to be able to answer, forensic questions specific to the business of someone I don't know from Adam?
I am guessing that you wanted me to come up with a few ideas so that you could shoot them down with your idea of how they couldn't work based on details about your business that I couldn't possibly know.. but I am not getting drawn into that
I forwarded you the name of UKIPs head of Policy, is it so unreasonable to think he may have a better idea than me?
Anyway, why do you care? Why not just vote for someone else?
..................An example of the questions such policies throw up : if a company hires a brilliant engineer from (say) India, should (s)he be able to bring in his family of eight with him, even if some of them may become cleaners? Can they come over immediately, or should there be a waiting period? Should they be able to apply for residency after a certain period in the UK?.....
A work permit for each of them should be required. Charge top end folk £10k to £20k pa for the work permits. Charge cleaners £2k to £3k pa. Look at the Cayman Islands way of coping with circa 50% of its workers on permits.
That is a reasonable starting point for debate, thanks.
This unedifying scramble to "give Scots what they want" - regardless of asking the rest of the UK - has finally pushed me into actively desiring a Yes vote [previously I was noncommittal].
"UK, Yes or No?" is a question for the Scots. "Lots more goodies and a revamped federal UK?" is a question for everyone.
And if Cameron (or whoever it is, if he resigns) doesn't indicate a strong desire to play hardball in the divorce negotiations he can kiss goodbye to my vote in May.
@Peter_the_Punter I have reason to believe that the Romans eventually worked out the picto/celtic mindset. They built walls and put up signs on their side, above the gates (in latin) "Do not provoke!"
It is fascinating that a few days ago people were complaining that immigrants don't integrate properly, and how bad that is, and how it causes problems in society.
Now we have the Scots, who have always been allowed their own leeway with their own legal system etc, and have never properly "integrated" and become British. Now this is causing problems as they want to go their own way.
Rather than flying the Saltire, perhaps we should have put Union Flags all over Scotland, and said look: this is Great Britain, you are part of it and all the greatness it is. So be part of it and fly our flag, or go your own way; but pick one.
Devolution only allowed a non-integrated community to further separate.
Putting Union flags all over Scotland now would be akin to putting Crosses up all over Bethnall Green, however, the broad thrust of your argument is correct. The sickness of this country is one of a weak (and deliberately weakened) culture (the British culture -which we've done nothing but mock, denigrate and be embarrassed about for the last 50 years), and of others not just filling that vacuum, but being subsidised and encouraged to do so. The same is happening now with the flipping Cornish. No-one likes to hate themselves.
It was 93% at the Quebec referendum. General election turnout there tended to be a bit lower than Scotland, and I can't see any other major relevant differences apart possibly from the state of the Register.
Thanks Peter. You surprise me, although I recognise that was an easy figure to find out. I'd be astonished if turnout was that high.
I'd been working off baselines for previous Scottish referenda (both in the low 60s I think) plus a bit of reading into the current opinion polls to get to an 80% - 85% figure. I see the previous Quebec referendum to 1995 was also high at 85%.
I'll be knocked over backwards if more than 90% of Scots vote. And there's always the weather.
I have a feeling there is a snowball effect at work. Just been speaking to a Scots colleague who says there has been a real shift. Salmond is winning the air war and the ground war, and the polls have given Yes a shot in the arm. There's is a "if you can't beat them join them" attitude up there that might push Yes over the top. The currency dead horse is being flogged by No.
Thank goodness that HanDodges fellow disappeared so quickly...
This unedifying scramble to "give Scots what they want" - regardless of asking the rest of the UK - has finally pushed me into actively desiring a Yes vote [previously I was noncommittal].
"UK, Yes or No?" is a question for the Scots. "Lots more goodies and a revamped federal UK?" is a question for everyone.
And if Cameron (or whoever it is, if he resigns) doesn't indicate a strong desire to play hardball in the divorce negotiations he can kiss goodbye to my vote in May.
I got there some time before you.
I've had enough of the Westminster coterie dishing out freebies to the north, and 'sod the rest of you'.
Glad to see Cammo, Milli and Clegg showing a bit of backbone. Whether it will do any good remains to be seen. They are all now linking themselves to any defeat.
If Cameron will have to resign in the wake of a Yes vote then surely the same applies to Milliband and Clegg (bearing in mind they have more Scottish MPs)
Cameron needs to get out there and do a Tony Blair and let himself be punished, and seen to be punished. Get shouted at. A few eggs would do him no harm (not a suggestion). Eases the anger and pressure.
Broadly tend to agree - I suspect that both Clegg and Cameron would be willing - altho I'm less sure about Miliband - let's see. On the other hand we don't really want a stunt for the media and it seems so frenetic up there that it's hard to see how they avoid it. Certainly the old soapbox routine did Major no harm and I seem to remember Quintin Hogg ringing a bell in the 60s in the face of some determined heckling. All part of the cut and thrust in those halcyon days....
This unedifying scramble to "give Scots what they want" - regardless of asking the rest of the UK - has finally pushed me into actively desiring a Yes vote [previously I was noncommittal].
"UK, Yes or No?" is a question for the Scots. "Lots more goodies and a revamped federal UK?" is a question for everyone.
And if Cameron (or whoever it is, if he resigns) doesn't indicate a strong desire to play hardball in the divorce negotiations he can kiss goodbye to my vote in May.
I got there some time before you.
I've had enough of the Westminster coterie dishing out freebies to the north, and 'sod the rest of you'.
Hmm. I suspect there's a very large part of England and Wales will be thinking "what about me?" Fertile ground for the kippers - who else are you going to turn to?
EDIT: I've just noticed that my avatar has wrapped himself in the Saltire.
This unedifying scramble to "give Scots what they want" - regardless of asking the rest of the UK - has finally pushed me into actively desiring a Yes vote [previously I was noncommittal].
"UK, Yes or No?" is a question for the Scots. "Lots more goodies and a revamped federal UK?" is a question for everyone.
And if Cameron (or whoever it is, if he resigns) doesn't indicate a strong desire to play hardball in the divorce negotiations he can kiss goodbye to my vote in May.
I got there some time before you.
I've had enough of the Westminster coterie dishing out freebies to the north, and 'sod the rest of you'.
Hmm. I suspect there's a very large part of England and Wales will be thinking "what about me?" Fertile ground for the kippers - who else are you going to turn to?
EDIT: I've just noticed that my avatar has wrapped himself in the Saltire.
Farage is too close to his chums in the City. And now Murdoch.
StJohn wrote a very good piece on this topic recently.
He calculated in his characteristically precise way that the most likely outcome was between 80 and 85 per cent. I suggested then that the 'risk' was on the high side, and since then things have moved on a bit in a way that suggests a higher rather than lower turnout.
I'd be surprised by 93% or more, but not flabbergasted.
This unedifying scramble to "give Scots what they want" - regardless of asking the rest of the UK - has finally pushed me into actively desiring a Yes vote [previously I was noncommittal].
"UK, Yes or No?" is a question for the Scots. "Lots more goodies and a revamped federal UK?" is a question for everyone.
And if Cameron (or whoever it is, if he resigns) doesn't indicate a strong desire to play hardball in the divorce negotiations he can kiss goodbye to my vote in May.
I got there some time before you.
I've had enough of the Westminster coterie dishing out freebies to the north, and 'sod the rest of you'.
Hmm. I suspect there's a very large part of England and Wales will be thinking "what about me?" Fertile ground for the kippers - who else are you going to turn to?
EDIT: I've just noticed that my avatar has wrapped himself in the Saltire.
Farage is too close to his chums in the City. And now Murdoch.
Not close enough to damage him that badly, yet. Whatever happens north o' the border, I can see FPTP taking a beating as fair system at the GE.
Mr Salmond had to follow UK legislation on referenda - which are different in detail from elections (rather surprisingly, but there we are). It's a reserved area of legislation. Complaints should go to Westminster.
The legislation which enacts the rules for this referendum is an Act of the Scottish Parliament. The only stipulation was that it should resemble the rules for the conduct of referendums under Part 7 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The precise nature of the rules for this referendum were a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
The funniest and most deliberate use of the term was in Lynne Truss' fine comic novel With One Lousy Packet Of Seeds. It's packed with in-jokes aimed at sub-editors and lazy writers. She introduces a character who is conveniently psychic in the last couple of pages to resolve a book long puzzle.
She even gets the character to ask if the reluctant hero has heard of the term... Honestly, it's just such a fun book and a total farce. I've read it many times and it always makes me laugh out loud.
Personally, I HATE witches in supernatural stories. They've got a random pick-n-mix of superpowers that come from nowhere to resolve whatever the issue is. At least most other monster types have bloody rules/folklore to stick too.
The writers in Supernatural [tv show] have a had terrible issues with an angel as he kept going deus ex machina. So they farted about with him from one season to another. One year he's a common or garden one, then a seraph with resurrection powers, then fallen to Earth as human, then God Mk II, then operating on a stolen grace that is running out blah blah. It's all their own fault. They keep creating plots that force them into it.
Miss Plato, deus ex machina is the bane of books. Incidentally, it refers to Greek theatre, where a tangled plot would end up being resolved by a god stepping in and making everything better (or worse, of course). I have vague memories of reading that it pissed off audiences even back then.
For one I am not in an argument, I just tried to answer a question that you asked.
I don't care what you think or how the policy I favour affects you
You did not have an answer when you replied: it was just "ask someone else".
Perhaps you should start to think how policies you favour affects people outside your narrow interests. I know it would be a first, but it might broaden your mind a little.
Comments
How about the rest of the UK? Get the Union flag back up there smartish.
Anyone playing this silly game, and offering further concessions, deserves a pounding at the English ballot box.
I'll eat a kilo of jellied eels if either of them put themselves into the position of taking questions from 'ordinary' voters. It's been suggested Cameron backed out of an STV interview with a Scottish audience because he wanted to choose the interviewer, have it recorded (non live) and have editorial oversight. If Cameron goes beyond that comfort zone now, my respect for him will increase somewhat.
Let's see - i doubt anyone would hold you to your first sentence. Of course it is so difficult to define 'ordinary' voters but I'd say they would give anyone a fair hearing - it's the zealots on both sides who we so often hear rather than the ordinary Jo's
It would also have been impossible to go on with PMQs as a third of the country threatens to break away. It would look crazily parochial, and blinkered, and bad for NO - the two party leaders bickering in London as Britain is about to dissolve. Just underlining that London doesn't care about Scotland.
So PMQs had to be cancelled anyway (I wonder if they will also cancel next week?).
And then everyone would say: where the hell are the leaders?
So they had to go to Scotland.
It's a big risk, but big risks are now needed. I agree they should get amongst the ordinary voters, be polite and humble, be eloquent and courteous. Emphasise the emotions and largely ignore the economics. If a Nat starts ranting at them just take it on the chin, and be polite and decorous in return.
Difficult. But needs to be done.
Even if 'No' scrapes home, that still means a minimum of 45-49% of the electorate of Scotland want out of the union. That is poison, and any amount of devo ultra ultra mega super max isn't going to change the feeling both north and south of the border that the marriage is pretty much over.
The day the referendum was called was the beginning of the end, regardless of the ultimate result.
Two of my best friends here in Stockholm are Scottish, both are unbelievably angry that they don't even get a vote whilst 'foreigners' in Scotland do. Ten of the eleven starters for Scotland against Germany on Sunday don't have a vote since they aren't on Salmond's electoral roll.
Bitterness, anger, sadness, frustration and possibly even violence will follow, whatever the result.
It would also have been impossible to go on with PMQs as a third of the country threatens to break away. It would look crazily parochial, and blinkered, and bad for NO - the two party leaders bickering in London as Britain is about to dissolve. Just underlining that London doesn't care about Scotland.
So PMQs had to be cancelled anyway (I wonder if they will also cancel next week?).
And then everyone would say: where the hell are the leaders?
So they had to go to Scotland.
It's a big risk, but big risks are now needed. I agree they should get amongst the ordinary voters, be polite and humble, be eloquent and courteous. Emphasise the emotions and largely ignore the economics. If a Nat starts ranting at them just take it on the chin, and be polite and decorous in return.
Difficult. But needs to be done.
Even if 'No' scrapes home, that still means a minimum of 45-49% of the electorate of Scotland want out of the union. That is poison, and any amount of devo ultra ultra mega super max isn't going to change the feeling both north and south of the border that the marriage is pretty much over.
The day the referendum was called was the beginning of the end, regardless of the ultimate result.
Two of my best friends here in Stockholm are Scottish, both are unbelievably angry that they don't even get a vote whilst 'foreigners' in Scotland do. Ten of the eleven starters for Scotland against Germany on Sunday don't have a vote since they aren't on Salmond's electoral roll.
Bitterness, anger, sadness, frustration and possibly even violence will follow, whatever the result.
Mr Salmond had to follow UK legislation on referenda - which are different in detail from elections (rather surprisingly, but there we are). It's a reserved area of legislation. Complaints should go to Westminster.
Even if 'No' scrapes home, that still means a minimum of 45-49% of the electorate of Scotland want out of the union. That is poison, and any amount of devo ultra ultra mega super max isn't going to change the feeling both north and south of the border that the marriage is pretty much over.
The day the referendum was called was the beginning of the end, regardless of the ultimate result.
Two of my best friends here in Stockholm are Scottish, both are unbelievably angry that they don't even get a vote whilst 'foreigners' in Scotland do. Ten of the eleven starters for Scotland against Germany on Sunday don't have a vote since they aren't on Salmond's electoral roll.
Bitterness, anger, sadness, frustration and possibly even violence will follow, whatever the result.
@WingsScotland @aphrodite1306 A baby on the way... three wise men coming to Scotland... it's like a dress rehearsal for a Nativity play.
"Just underlining that London doesn't care about Scotland."
I know this might be hard for many on here but actually London, or at least the majority of Londoners, couldn't give a big rats arse about Scotland. The same goes for most of England.
Born Charles Leonard Augustus Parsons in Filey, Yorkshire, England, he was the illegitimate son of two middle class travelling entertainers ... their hectic lifestyles prompted them to give up baby Leo, who was fostered out to (and later adopted by) a working class couple, a Glasgow shipyard worker named James Blair and his wife Mary, taking their surname.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2749070/English-families-urged-fly-Saltire-convince-wavering-Scottish-voters-reject-independence.html
@joncraig: Senior TUC official tells me Mark Carney declaring currency union in event of Yes vote "incompatible with sovereignty" was "a bombshell".
But I have no problem with that sentiment - indyref is not primarily about the English - far from it - but our own governance and resposibilities.
You just lost the argument, mate.
Yet.
He is right though. He needs to say it. Now more than ever. If there is a yes, there needs to be absolute clarity by everyone involved that a currency union is not compatible with sovereignty.
It is fascinating that a few days ago people were complaining that immigrants don't integrate properly, and how bad that is, and how it causes problems in society.
Now we have the Scots, who have always been allowed their own leeway with their own legal system etc, and have never properly "integrated" and become British. Now this is causing problems as they want to go their own way.
Rather than flying the Saltire, perhaps we should have put Union Flags all over Scotland, and said look: this is Great Britain, you are part of it and all the greatness it is. So be part of it and fly our flag, or go your own way; but pick one.
Devolution only allowed a non-integrated community to further separate.
Last night, the entire city was swarming with millions of shrieking and wailing Londoners, caught up in strange mass hysteria. Or not.
Unless and until there is a credible alternative (Clegg FFS?) then Cameron can't resign, and if he tried the Queen could refuse (there is precedent apparently)
So its down to these 3 gents to save the union.
God help us all.
Some elision and sins of omission going on there methinks (not by you, Mr P., I hasten to add).
"He is right though. He needs to say it. Now more than ever. If there is a yes, there needs to be absolute clarity by everyone involved that a currency union is not compatible with sovereignty."
I don't see how there can be the slightest doubt about this. Currency Union cannot possibly be compatible with sovereignty. It is a statement of the bleeding obvious, although evidently not so obvious to some that the Governor thought it went without saying.
For one I am not in an argument, I just tried to answer a question that you asked.
I don't care what you think or how the policy I favour affects you
"UK, Yes or No?" is a question for the Scots. "Lots more goodies and a revamped federal UK?" is a question for everyone.
And if Cameron (or whoever it is, if he resigns) doesn't indicate a strong desire to play hardball in the divorce negotiations he can kiss goodbye to my vote in May.
twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/509318872441180160/photo/1
I have reason to believe that the Romans eventually worked out the picto/celtic mindset.
They built walls and put up signs on their side, above the gates (in latin) "Do not provoke!"
@Theuniondivvie Prepare the paypal invoice.
@Bond_James_Bond Prepare to send £30 to Cancer Research or a charity of your choice.
I'd been working off baselines for previous Scottish referenda (both in the low 60s I think) plus a bit of reading into the current opinion polls to get to an 80% - 85% figure. I see the previous Quebec referendum to 1995 was also high at 85%.
I'll be knocked over backwards if more than 90% of Scots vote. And there's always the weather.
I've had enough of the Westminster coterie dishing out freebies to the north, and 'sod the rest of you'.
If Cameron will have to resign in the wake of a Yes vote then surely the same applies to Milliband and Clegg (bearing in mind they have more Scottish MPs)
EDIT: I've just noticed that my avatar has wrapped himself in the Saltire.
StJohn wrote a very good piece on this topic recently.
He calculated in his characteristically precise way that the most likely outcome was between 80 and 85 per cent. I suggested then that the 'risk' was on the high side, and since then things have moved on a bit in a way that suggests a higher rather than lower turnout.
I'd be surprised by 93% or more, but not flabbergasted.
She even gets the character to ask if the reluctant hero has heard of the term... Honestly, it's just such a fun book and a total farce. I've read it many times and it always makes me laugh out loud.
Personally, I HATE witches in supernatural stories. They've got a random pick-n-mix of superpowers that come from nowhere to resolve whatever the issue is. At least most other monster types have bloody rules/folklore to stick too.
The writers in Supernatural [tv show] have a had terrible issues with an angel as he kept going deus ex machina. So they farted about with him from one season to another. One year he's a common or garden one, then a seraph with resurrection powers, then fallen to Earth as human, then God Mk II, then operating on a stolen grace that is running out blah blah. It's all their own fault. They keep creating plots that force them into it.
Perhaps you should start to think how policies you favour affects people outside your narrow interests. I know it would be a first, but it might broaden your mind a little.